Chess clocks in straight pool

[Joe T]

I don't know the exact times for a 150 race or race to eleven but I know most pro events are scheduled around 2-4hr blocks so I'll just start there with a race to 11 9 ball.

Each player gets 90 minutes (allows for a 3hr 9 ball match), when their time runs out they lose 1 rack and another rack for each 5 or 10 minutes over.
(one note on 9 ball events, lots of time is spent during the racking issue of the show so that would have to be adressed right away, probably rack your own and rack'em as quick as possible)

14.1 to 150 yeah can go slow sometimes so we'll say 2hrs each on the clock and 1o or 20 points added to opponent score for running out and another 10 or 20 balls per 5 or 10 minutes over.

It wouldn't take long to get fair time frames set in place.
We don't want it to dominate the matches it's just meant to help prevent the all out slow or stall matches. 1 match can crush an entire event chart wise and spectator wise. This would mostly be a precaution and I don't think it would not be hard to try.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I think the simple loss of match penalty could work in pro tournaments given the right scheduling without really changing the game in the large majority of matches. And I really think that should be tried.

But how about this for a dumb idea... your clock runs out, you lose all your turns from there on out. Your opponent just keeps shooting when he misses until his time expires. High score wins.

That doesn't work because the one guy left shooting is no longer playing straight pool. He doesn't have to worry about identifying key balls, dealing with trouble balls or clusters, or setting up break shots because he can just bust up the rack, spot any slop that went in, and continue. He also never has to play safe so there is no risk in playing a difficult shot. If it gets to this point all you have really is speed pool, not straight pool.

And good lord, I certainly hope I never see the day when the "nudge" shot from speed pool finds its way into straight pool.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... lots of time is spent during the racking issue of the show so that would have to be adressed right away, probably rack your own and rack'em as quick as possible ...

I think the clock should be stopped for "referee time outs," such as racking and finding the single usable bridge in the whole room. Chess clocks I've seen can be stopped by depressing both buttons equally.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

I am more and more in favor of the chess clock idea, but there is one huge drawback to it that so far has gone unaddressed, I think. The problem with the chess clock is it's either used from the start of the game or cannot be used at all (there would be ways to introduce it mid-game, but all of them fairly clumsy).

So if two guys who normally play an average speed don't start with the clock, and for whatever reason are taking forever, there's not much that can be done. Here is the main advantage of the 30 second clock - it can be introduced as soon as it needs to be.

The 30 second clock can also be used as protection for faster players. If they're playing with a terminally slow player and a chess clock is not used from the outset, the only way to remedy the situation is to introduce a shot clock.

The only other thing that frightens me about the chess clock is what protections are there for forgetting to turn your clock off? I know your side turns off when the other side starts, but both players could genuinely forget (or the incoming player could "forget"). If even a single match in any major tournament is compromised because of this, it's not worth it. The game should always be played on the table.

I know I'm bringing up some negatives, but in truth, I do kind of like the idea in general. Might need just a few tweaks.

- Steve

 

[dmgwalsh]

I am more and more in favor of the chess clock idea, but there is one huge drawback to it that so far has gone unaddressed, I think. The problem with the chess clock is it's either used from the start of the game or cannot be used at all (there would be ways to introduce it mid-game, but all of them fairly clumsy).

So if two guys who normally play an average speed don't start with the clock, and for whatever reason are taking forever, there's not much that can be done. Here is the main advantage of the 30 second clock - it can be introduced as soon as it needs to be.

The 30 second clock can also be used as protection for faster players. If they're playing with a terminally slow player and a chess clock is not used from the outset, the only way to remedy the situation is to introduce a shot clock.

The only other thing that frightens me about the chess clock is what protections are there for forgetting to turn your clock off? I know your side turns off when the other side starts, but both players could genuinely forget (or the incoming player could "forget"). If even a single match in any major tournament is compromised because of this, it's not worth it. The game should always be played on the table.

I know I'm bringing up some negatives, but in truth, I do kind of like the idea in general. Might need just a few tweaks.

- Steve

I remember a few tournament games in chess where one player forget and the other pretended like he was really studying the board until eventually the other player caught on and slammed his clock.

 

[3andstop]

Silly as it may sound, the solution to forgetting to hit the clock may be as simple as putting a sign on the table on an 8x10 sheet with a beautiful bathing beauty pointing at the timer captioned "Hit your clock". When you sit back down at the table you won't miss the sign.

I'm kidding about the swim suit picture, but the sign in bright letters on the table would be pretty hard to miss.

 

[Joe T]

11:42 Friday night;
For a guideline I'm thinking that for 14.1 you allow 1 minute for every 2 balls the players are racing to; race to 100, 50 minutes each, maybe 60 minutes, race to 200, 100 minutes each maybe 120?
Or maybe 1.5 balls per minute?